The whole Christian belief system is a house of cards...if you start with the base - the creation story - the whole thing falls down.

You would think the smarter thing for them to do is to accept evolution (as any intelligent non-brainwashed person would do) and figure out a PR spin on how evolution is all part of their god's plan. They do that with other aspects of the myth.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

(29-06-2015 10:46 AM)Anjele Wrote: The whole Christian belief system is a house of cards...if you start with the base - the creation story - the whole thing falls down.

You would think the smarter thing for them to do is to accept evolution (as any intelligent non-brainwashed person would do) and figure out a PR spin on how evolution is all part of their god's plan. They do that with other aspects of the myth.

But they are brainwashed. That is the problem. So it don't matter what non-indoctrinated person would do, as they are indoctrinated. Lack of education also could be problem - I was taught about evolution and I don't heard a thing about creationism in school but for others situation could be different.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Creationists seem to think that people (especially atheists) who understand that evolution is true, believe it like it is a religion. They can't wrap their heads around the fact that is not the case.
They have to hold on to creation theory, they're stuck with it and it pisses them off.
What really grinds their gears though, and amuses me to no end is this.
If tomorrow science somehow found a new theory that empirically proved evolution wrong, I wouldn't be heartbroken about it, and creationism would still be wrong.

To all who seam interested about the incredulity of the beginnings of life the evolutionary way, consider this. Has anyone ever calculated the odds against a single cell organism which has been reproducing just fine by dividing into multi-millions of themselves, then later begin to reproduce with a mate. What is so incredible about this impossibility is that this single cell has to automatically need to find a mate cell which has the same intentions at the same time for conjugation to occur. What a happen-chance bunch of crap that is. For any creature to have ventured off a tried and true method of making more of themselves, a rebel in the group decides its time to do it another way.
This can not happen! Both cells would have had to develop a method simultaneously for any chance of a coupling to occur. and as for coupling...that would not have happened without a very difficult set of design issues which would have to change for both just for this chance to occur. To say that this obtuse idea is the rule for creation is just a farce.
Someone does not have to study about a complex method called adaptation to reason out that life did not have that capability until it was later designed in. In nature, creatures usually only make copies of themselves, and do not have the foresight to adjust themselves to be something else.

(29-06-2015 09:11 PM)RDK Wrote: To all who seam interested about the incredulity of the beginnings of life the evolutionary way, consider this. Has anyone ever calculated the odds against a single cell organism which has been reproducing just fine by dividing into multi-millions of themselves, then later begin to reproduce with a mate. What is so incredible about this impossibility is that this single cell has to automatically need to find a mate cell which has the same intentions at the same time for conjugation to occur. What a happen-chance bunch of crap that is. For any creature to have ventured off a tried and true method of making more of themselves, a rebel in the group decides its time to do it another way.
This can not happen! Both cells would have had to develop a method simultaneously for any chance of a coupling to occur. and as for coupling...that would not have happened without a very difficult set of design issues which would have to change for both just for this chance to occur. To say that this obtuse idea is the rule for creation is just a farce.
Someone does not have to study about a complex method called adaptation to reason out that life did not have that capability until it was later designed in. In nature, creatures usually only make copies of themselves, and do not have the foresight to adjust themselves to be something else.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if you applied the same skepticism to your own faith based thoughts as you do to evolution.

Without the understanding of systems, you can not ever hope to make sense of the puzzle of creation. There can be no accident whatsoever for the cell to improve without some outside help. All of the cells parts serve together in harmony to provide a suitable environment for life. There are no extra parts hanging around in there that have nothing better to do than wait for more parts to come along so that this creature can evolve. Each individual part of a cell has its unique work to do, and they can't survive at all without the help of the other parts.
If the engine in your car was missing just one important part, you would never have a vehicle which could drive. Likewise, a cell needs all of the parts there working together to support each other to make a life. This is a system, all parts integrated to communicate, exchange gasses and fluids, create an energy source, store the information about all of this ability, and, reproduce itself within a shell which must interact with the outside world for locomotion, feeding, and elimination.
These are the simplest things that a cell needs to do to live. Can you imagine all of the molecular activity which has to organize ITSELF just to make all of those aforementioned parts to do their job? You are asking for thoughtless atoms to organize together just to make something successful. What are these self replicating atoms.? Do molecules of anything really know how to form something at all? There is no need to answer this.
A system needs organization and planning to become what it is, and it can't happen by accident. Just as many chance occurrences toward the construction of something, can just as often result in its total destruction.

(29-06-2015 09:44 PM)RDK Wrote: Without the understanding of systems, you can not ever hope to make sense of the puzzle of creation. There can be no accident whatsoever for the cell to improve without some outside help. All of the cells parts serve together in harmony to provide a suitable environment for life. There are no extra parts hanging around in there that have nothing better to do than wait for more parts to come along so that this creature can evolve. Each individual part of a cell has its unique work to do, and they can't survive at all without the help of the other parts.
If the engine in your car was missing just one important part, you would never have a vehicle which could drive. Likewise, a cell needs all of the parts there working together to support each other to make a life. This is a system, all parts integrated to communicate, exchange gasses and fluids, create an energy source, store the information about all of this ability, and, reproduce itself within a shell which must interact with the outside world for locomotion, feeding, and elimination.
These are the simplest things that a cell needs to do to live. Can you imagine all of the molecular activity which has to organize ITSELF just to make all of those aforementioned parts to do their job? You are asking for thoughtless atoms to organize together just to make something successful. What are these self replicating atoms.? Do molecules of anything really know how to form something at all? There is no need to answer this.
A system needs organization and planning to become what it is, and it can't happen by accident. Just as many chance occurrences toward the construction of something, can just as often result in its total destruction.

Your understanding of evolution is 3rd or 4th grade at best.
There is no need to answer this.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce

The following 2 users Like Full Circle's post:2 users Like Full Circle's postChas (30-06-2015), Clockwork (01-07-2015)

A faith based system functions very well if it works to prove something which can substantiate it's own existence. I prefer to use the word trust. If you begin to see an idea form and you work with it until it makes sense, you can have faith that more of the same is likely to follow. I don't mean reading a lot of things in a book that you can't understand. That faith/trust arrangement needs to mean something that is good for you, and others, for it to have any value at all. It must be repeatable and worthwhile for you to expend the extra energy.
I believe that the intentions of most people are to search out what makes sense and what is valuable in life. I won't begin to try to defend people who claim God is in their life, and they do horrible things to others which cancels out their good achievements.
I think that the Bible is one of the most difficult books to understand. You can find any evidence in there to support whatever opinions that you have-God is love, God is hate, etc. Without direction we are left to guess at what might be a correct answer.
For me, love and kindness are my greatest aspirations. Nothing else that I have done has left anything good in my life to talk about at all. Simple. I seek simple.